RT @MihailoBjelic: Apparently OCamlPro engineers are forking Tezos. They're creating a $1M SPV to fund the fork.
This proves that on-chain governance is *not* a solution for contentious issues. Forks are the solution. 🙂 On-chain governance is still very interesting IMO.
https://t.co/iTB4614QmX

RT @MihailoBjelic: Apparently OCamlPro engineers are forking Tezos. They're creating a $1M SPV to fund the fork.
This proves that on-chain governance is *not* a solution for contentious issues. Forks are the solution. 🙂 On-chain governance is still very interesting IMO.
https://t.co/iTB4614QmX

Arthur Breitman and friends are such innocents and cute little kitties!

Libertarians and already rich people that just want to get richer an avoid to pay any legal tax. You don't want to change the world, you want to steal it as all ultra capitalist people. You are just an hypocritical crew.

OCamlPro has been founded by Fabrice and it seem that most of you don't know him. He is a great computer scientist and before that a beautiful person. Without him OCamlPro would not exist. Most of you are money driven people and you lost your humanity a long time ago.

I hope that he and OCamlPro will decide to just shutdown all their services and leave you to your favorite hobby, eat your own shit and split it all around you.

I know right?
Why wouldn't they want to work on the main project in the space, rather than some unknown not in the top 100 shit coin?
They could have developed proposals and gotten paid in tezos.
What is wrong with these guys? Why don't the sensible members defect and go to nomadic labs?

This presents a potentially sticky situation. They could fork it and immediately get on large exchanges with a good exchange marketing program. This is not out of the question. Would we receive these new dune coins as bitcoin holders received BCASH and BSV etc?

OCamlPro engineers are highly talented individuals that we wish only the best to. OCamlPro's leadership is the topic of this article, not the engineers. What was depicted to us is **not negotiation**. It was **unreasonable demands, threats, black mail and entitlement.** It was their leadership who decided to violate the terms of their grant and refused to honor signed contracts that *contributed* to the delay of the project post fundraiser. Why on earth would you continue doing business? The Tezos Foundation should focus on addressing other community concerns as it has nothing to learn from this. This type of behavior is entirely unacceptable.

“It was their leadership who decided to violate the terms of their grant and refused to honor signed contracts that delayed the project post fundraiser.”
I’m trying to understand whether this means OCamlPro was responsible for the delay after the 2017 ICO... which subsequently gave room for the lawsuits ?
If true, the TF unwillingness to negotiate is completely understandable.

Let me make sure I understand your point(s):
Now not only did OCamlPro sabotage their own negotiations, but they're also retroactively responsible for the months of post fundraiser bumbling by Gevers, Diego, and Guido- *and* they single handedly delayed a project we were all told was "basically done" before the fundraiser even happened. *Edit: Bitc0m has since edited his post and backpedaled from this assertion. Probably a good idea*
And of course, TF "has nothing to learn" from the entire debacle.
If so, what an alarming and disappointing stance from TCF.

>And of course, TF "has nothing to learn" from the entire debacle.
Incorrect. Unreasonable demands are not "negotiations" so yes. Edited the post inserting the word 'contributed' to be more inclusive. Perhaps if your interpretation didn't attempt to depict us as sycophants of the Tezos Foundation others wouldn't feel my statement was being misrepresented. Enjoy the rest of your day!

>Incorrect. Unreasonable demands are not "negotiations" so yes.
And who's the arbiter of what's reasonable? You? Or one of the parties to the negotiation? Bitch, please.
>Edited the post inserting the word 'contributed' to be more inclusive. Perhaps if your interpretation didn't attempt to depict us as sycophants of the Tezos Foundation others wouldn't feel my statement was being misrepresented. Enjoy the rest of your day!
Those are your words, mate.

You're inferring a lot of hostility that isn't there. I'm not attempting to depict anyone as anything, I'm asking you to confirm and/or explain things you've said.
I've also asked for further clarification if your comments above are the official TCF stance or just your own take; and you've yet to clarify.
Anyway:
>Incorrect. Unreasonable demands are not "negotiations" so yes.
This is really confusing wording. What's incorrect? And "so yes" to what? Yes the TF shouldn't learn from the past mistakes they've made dealing with OCamlPro?

I didn't misrepresent anything. I asked him to clarify his seemingly extreme stance expressed in response to me wishing for TF to learn from their mistakes in dealing with OCamlPro.
After bringing up post fundraiser delays (not related to my post) he said:
>The Tezos Foundation should focus on addressing other community concerns ***as it has nothing to learn from this.***
Is his stance TF has nothing to learn from the OCamlPro negotiation mistakes (see: my earlier post) or not?
edit: Better yet, is that the official TCF party line?

I think this project desperately needs \_transparency\_! I think majority of the community does not have any idea what has been going on behind the scenes and how long. Today we have heard one side of the story, hopefully we will hear OCamlPro's side of the story as well soon, and hopefully Tezos Reddit can be used for open discussion on these things, and some posts don't get instantly downvoted into the oblivion. I think it is crucial that things can be discussed openly and questions can be raised so that things become clear and everyone can make their own decision.

So do xtz holders also get starchain coin like btc holders got bch? Cus i want to dump this coin and buy more xtz, that would be sweet. Also you guys need to know that these events will always exist, its part of a successful chain, look at bitcoin its all drama from the start. Better get used to it.

I guess nobody knows what their plans are, but in this document (link below) where they explain fork it says 'Note: every stakeholders of a network will automatically received the same amount of new tokens that they owned in the ‘father network’ tokens. For example, if I owned 10Bitcoins in 2017, I would have automatically received 10BitcoinCash the day off the Bitcoin Cash fork.
&#x200B;
Then, stakeholders can decide in which project (old or new) they believe the most, and sell the one they dont want to support/back/hold.'
&#x200B;
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LzLO9XiljxldeaYLczqqg9rCaBQR0Emn/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LzLO9XiljxldeaYLczqqg9rCaBQR0Emn/view)
&#x200B;
Edit: again I have to wonder why the downvoting? This is what is says. Is it not OK to discuss this openly? If so, then why?

I don't want a fork. I hold TF responsible for failing to end this speculation/real fork intention!
However, Tezos is not perfect. TF is slow in spreading the adoption of Tezos; thus, don't underestimate OCP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/tezos/comments/blsdma/clarity_around_our_conversations_with_ocamlpro/emrmn2r/
https://www.reddit.com/r/tezos/comments/blsdma/clarity_around_our_conversations_with_ocamlpro/emsymya/
It seems more like ocp is being freerided badly.

OCP should stay into the community and propose amendments, if OCP can't stay we will never engage non-core devs to the on-chain process.. and this project will become too similar than other forked projects..

It's not about making money itself (the comment above was more like a joke [maybe bad] about that fact that they prefer altchain instead amendments), it's about way the one do this. I told earlier that I see nothing wrong with creating the altchain itself (I can do it, you can do it), but they started from clearly false facts about Tezos history, claiming credits for something that isn't true at all (about OCaml development, Arthur's teacher, etc).
There are million ways to make money without harming anyone and making false statements (If not this, I would support the altchain and wish them a luck).
It makes me even more sad because I know that amazing engineers are working in OCP who really helped our community and contributed a lot to the project. I'm sure this is not their decision, but a big bosses one.

Hmm, I can confirm that I never had Fabrice as a teacher. Why would they make that up?

Good luck on this fork. It's ingrained in the nature of this open source technology (i.e. not encumbered by any proprietary extensions) that anyone can propose a new genesis block to a community and launch a chain. Doing so is merely an act of speech and I believe in free speech. Cheers.

I've always felt Proof of Stake self-ammending blockchains might be almost impossible to fork. That's because majority stakers on the originating chain will also be majority stakers on the forked chain, on which they can vote for destructive changes and bring it to a halt.
In other words, how can a fork survive if majority that can ammend it is against that fork?
One thing that comes to mind is redistributing the money from scratch, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. What am I missing?

This idea is really interesting, but where would the money from the top X accounts go? I guess you could distribute it proportionally to the remaining accounts.
On the other hand, what message would it send to chain's users? "We're stealing coins from the wealthy and giving it to you". A lot of people would realise that such arbitrary decisions can always lead to their coins being the ones redistributed to others (in some future forks), so probably will not be happy to set the precedent.

Well the other more game theoretic aligned solution is to somehow reward those who don't go against the network.
A very crude version would be to do a fork, and when whales who vote for destructive changes on the new chain, to set their balances to zero in fork v2.

If I remember correctly, ETC kept ETH's distribution of Ether. The only major change was to never rollback DAO hacker's account/transactions. That's why everyone who had Ether on ETH also had/has ether on ETC chain.
I think that redistributing coins is almost impossible to do - who would they go to, how to do it fairly? Every modification of distribution would seem unfair and outrage a lot of people. One of the biggest selling points of forks (see all the Bitcoin forks) is to tell original holders that they already have some money on the fork so that they have a reason to come and use it, or even "switch" to the new fork. Onboarding completely new users is a show-stopper most of the time.

It depends on how truly useless you believe a fork to be, and whether you would be better off simply selling your forked coins (if there were any buyers to be found) rather than keeping them around just to mess with it.
Known malign actors in a given PoS fork (such as those identified by voting behaviour) can be dealt with easily by hard-forking to delete their stakes, and that only requires a modest degree of cohesion between the sincere holders.

As for the second argument, I think you're underestimating how hard and destructive hard-forking a chain is. Even the concept of having to hard-fork a hard-fork, and then maybe do it again, makes the whole idea of the fork quite uninteresting and unviable.
But your initial argument is definitely interesting. Voting on a hard-fork amendment to bring the fork down requires quite a bit of effort, so the fork itself must be seen as dangerous/viable enough for people to bother. But if that's the case, why bring it down and not just observe who is the winner or maybe try to monetize on it?
I have no idea how that would work out. But BTC forks (especially the BTC/BCH one) have shown that forking is a net negative for both sides. Since major part of coin's value can be attributed to network effects (how many people use it), forking a chain makes both forks (in sum) less valuable than the originating chain. Therefore if market is mature enough and fork is supported only by minority, then majority will have enough incentive to fight the fork. But yes - that's assuming that majority is against the fork.

On the subject of hard-forks within hard-forks, I would contend that they are not that difficult, particularly if you assume that there is a centralising entity which originated or nucleated the fork (having the technical capacity to create a new auto-forking version of the software), and having been party to them myself in the early history of Tezos; two separate hard forks that proceeded smoothly by simply convincing an overwhelming majority of the bakers that they were appropriate (by the predefined logic of what constituted grounds for bugfix-related or uncontentious upgrades) and have them upgrade their software in advance of a deadline.
I also tend to agree that the sensible default for most holders and bakers is to leave a fork alone and see what comes of it, and then ultimately allow the market to set the respective assets to their highest use by free exchange.

Couldn't have said it better. I personally see nothing wrong or bad in launching the different chain since anyone can do it (but I doubt that many people support it), it just makes me sad that they started from false facts about history behind Tezos.

Not to mention their recent public attacks that perfectly align with when their plans became official, along with a pointless upgrade proposal injection that delays the upgrade process for other teams. The whole way they're going about it is the problem, not the fork itself.

Solutions are being worked on to deal with spammy proposals. The issue here is that their proposal will go into exploration phase, where we need to spend 3 weeks voting it down before we can inject the next proposals.
Ideally we should require a minimum # of upvotes in this phase to move on to exploration phase.

I doubt that their proposal will even pass exploration phase, just compare upvotes of brest proposal vs any of athens. We will likely return then to the 1st phase and any other good proposal will likely beat brest with more upvotes and will proceed to the 2nd phase.

Well, the optimistic in me thinks " imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". All the major projects have seen it..Bitcoin, Ethereum and we won't be any different.

OCamlPro, it does hurt that it had to be you. I've used TzScan just about every day for the past year...but guess what...there are other great engineers out there and TzScan can be replaced. If this is true, I think you are making a huge mistake and good luck on your pump and dump.

You seem to fight so hard for Tezos ICO funds to not pay out developers that have been instrumental in Tezos yet you have no issues with a Tezos foundation president who pays himself any amount he wishes without any oversight or transparency.

Do you wear this "nothingsatisfiesthehaters" on top of your MAGA hat? Because you all seem pretty stupid about the fund highjacking by RJ and his secret salary and perks. Must be nice for him to have defenders like you people while $ disappears.

So just for clarity sake, is the fork intended to be a fork of the live network similar to how BCH and ETC came into existence? Or are they launching their own coin from 0 and hoping to get people to join?

My understanding is that it would be a fork of the chain, with 5% inflation funding going to the investors (although this would not rule out other targets for inflation funding, like a separate fund for OCP alone), based on my read of the prospectus. Seems likely they would also zero out the TF allocation, and perhaps the devs.